Your council knows something is wrong. Meetings feel heavier than they should. Meanwhile, emails sit for a week, and the last money report raised three questions nobody got answers to. What's missing is the language to describe it. In short, a strata manager performance review BC councils can trust needs a rubric, not a feeling. This post gives you ten dimensions, a 1-to-5 scale, a total score, and a clear next step.
Key takeaway: ten dimensions, fifty points, one decision — stay, evaluate, or switch. 40–50 means stay and improve. 30–39 means open an RFP. Below 30 means run the switch playbook.
Ten dimensions, fifty points, one decision: stay, evaluate, or switch.
Why a rubric beats a gut feeling
Councils that try to argue bad service in prose almost always fail. "The manager isn't great" is not an argument a ¾ vote survives. For instance, the Eli Report's review of 8,000 Canadian community budgets puts the average BC strata fee at $35 per unit per month. As a result, a 40-unit building spends around $17,000 a year on management alone. That number needs a review with numbers attached, not adjectives. A rubric does three things an impression cannot. First, it surfaces where council members disagree; when two members score the same dimension differently, one has facts the other lacks. In practice, closing that gap is worth more than the final score. Second, it builds a record. If the council ends up at the Civil Resolution Tribunal, a clean paper trail beats six months of grievances. Third, it makes the council look at each fault alone, so one bad month can't colour ten other dimensions.
The ten dimensions below draw from two sources. Specifically, the first is BCFSA's guidance for picking a management company, the eight-point checklist the regulator publishes. In contrast, the second is the complaint pattern across Fort Park's blog, the CRT database, and the Reddit switch threads where BC councils describe what went wrong. When we scored those sources, the same five failure modes show up in every published complaint. However, the BCFSA list covers most, not all. As a result, our rubric extends BCFSA's eight to ten. BCFSA is the British Columbia Financial Services Authority, the regulator for real estate and strata work under RESA. CHOA is the Condominium Home Owners' Association of BC, a non-profit that puts out strata bulletins. RESA is the Real Estate Services Act. Those three names sit behind almost every criterion below.
Dimension 1: Manager turnover and stability
When we scored BC firms, the top gripe was losing a third or fourth manager in four years. Similarly, Fort Park's blog calls it the number-one predictor of council frustration. In practice, a new manager every 12 to 18 months means memory is lost. Onboarding restarts. Meanwhile, old maintenance items come back to the table, and the council's volunteer hours go toward re-explaining what the last manager already knew.
What good looks like (score 5): the same manager has served your building for 3+ years, knows the contractor list by memory, and flagged two things at the last AGM that weren't in the agenda.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): you've had 3 different managers in the past 24 months, and the current one introduced themselves at the last meeting.
Scoring rubric for dimension 1:
| Score | What it describes |
|---|---|
| 5 | Same manager for 3+ years, full institutional memory |
| 4 | Same manager for 18–36 months |
| 3 | Same manager for 12–18 months |
| 2 | Two manager changes in the past 24 months |
| 1 | Three or more manager changes in the past 24 months |
Dimension 2: Communication responsiveness
How fast should a BC strata manager respond to an email?
The industry norm is 24 to 48 hours for non-emergency items; anything beyond 72 hours is a problem. Similarly, Fort Park lists poor communication as the second most cited complaint. In our review of council complaints, the pattern that predicts churn is not slow replies but uneven replies: same-day on Monday, silence for ten days, then a reply only after the council chases. Score this on both the stated SLA and the real-world behaviour. For instance, a contract that promises 24 hours but delivers 96 scores a 2, not a 5. Pull the last 10 non-emergency emails to the manager and count how many got a real reply inside 48 hours. If fewer than 7 of 10 did, the score is 3 or below.
What good looks like (score 5): substantive response within 48 hours on 9 of the last 10 emails, clear vacation coverage handoff, and a stated escalation path to the managing broker.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): emails go unanswered for a week or more, and the council hears back only after chasing.
Dimension 3: Financial transparency
What does a BC strata financial statement contain?
A monthly statement should include an operating ledger with notes, a CRF balance, arrears at the unit level, and any third-party pay from a contractor. In contrast, a PDF dump of bank statements with no notes is not a financial report. As a result, the Eli Report's data shows that poor books are the top trigger for a switch. CRF is the Contingency Reserve Fund, the savings account under Section 92 of the Strata Property Act that funds big repairs in the depreciation report. Ask for the last six monthly packages and read them side by side. If the CRF balance at end of month three doesn't match the opening at month four, you have a reconciliation problem. Similarly, invoices with no matching work order are a trust problem.
What good looks like (score 5): monthly package includes narrative on variances, full vendor detail with invoice numbers, current CRF balance, and proactive flags on upcoming capital items. Third-party compensation, where it exists, is disclosed in writing.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no narrative, no variance explanation, and the council can't tell from the report whether the CRF is on track.
Dimension 4: Meeting preparation and attendance
A BC strata manager is hired to prep for and attend the AGM plus a set number of council meetings each year. Similarly, CHOA guidance sets the bar plainly: agendas distributed in advance, minutes drafted in 14 days, action items tracked across meetings. In contrast, a manager who shows up without reading the prior minutes is pushing volunteer hours back onto the council. Score this dimension on three specific behaviours. First, did the agenda arrive 7+ days before the meeting? Second, were the prior meeting's minutes approved at the next one, or pushed? Third, did action items from two meetings ago show up in the current status report, or quietly vanish?
What good looks like (score 5): agenda distributed 7 days prior, action items tracked from meeting to meeting, minutes drafted within 14 days of the meeting, and a written 90-day plan delivered quarterly.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): agenda arrives the morning of, action items from three meetings ago are still "in progress," and the manager doesn't remember what was decided last time.
Dimension 5: Contractor and vendor management
Fort Park's notes flag follow-through on contractor work as a steady failure mode. For instance: a council approves a roof repair in April. The manager picks a vendor in May. Nothing happens in June. Nobody raises it until September, when the ceiling stains. Similarly, RESA section 5-11 requires managers to disclose any pay from vendors they refer. Ask the direct question: does any vendor working with our building pay us a referral fee? In our review of BC switch stories, hidden kickbacks are the top reason councils lose trust mid-contract. Meanwhile, the CRT has heard several cases where missed disclosure drove damages awards.
What good looks like (score 5): written vendor policy, zero undisclosed third-party compensation, action items from meetings tracked to completion, and proactive flagging when a vendor is slipping.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): the same three maintenance items have been "scheduled" for six months, and the manager can't answer whether vendor referral fees are received.
Dimension 6: Bylaw enforcement consistency
Bylaw enforcement is the dimension where councils most often feel a manager is either asleep or heavy-handed. Neither is acceptable. In practice, even-handed enforcement means the same steps for every breach: written notice, hearing option under Section 135, fine at the set amount, escalation path. In contrast, uneven enforcement is where CRT complaints begin. Score this using minutes as proof. Count the bylaw breaches raised in the last six council meetings. How many got a Section 135 notice? How many were raised but never actioned? How many were enforced against one unit while the same breach in another was let go? In short, the pattern matters more than the volume.
What good looks like (score 5): every infraction gets a Section 135 notice within 14 days, fines apply consistently at schedule rates, the process is documented in the minutes, and hearings are offered without prompting.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): enforcement is selective, hearings are skipped, and two identical infractions got two different outcomes.
Dimension 7: Insurance management
BC strata insurance renewals have been rough since 2020. Specifically, the Insurance Bureau of Canada tracked double-digit premium hikes across most of the province through 2022. As a result, renewal quality is a core test of management skill. Section 149 of the Strata Property Act requires the strata to carry property and liability insurance on common property. The manager's job is to run the renewal, show options, and disclose any broker pay under RESA. Score on three behaviours: did the manager start 90+ days before expiry, were multiple quotes shown, and was any broker commission disclosed in writing? In our experience, councils that say "insurance just renewed on its own" almost always score a 2 or below.
What good looks like (score 5): renewal process starts 90 days pre-expiry, three quotes presented, broker compensation disclosed in writing, and the council receives a plain-English summary of coverage changes year over year.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): renewal lands on the council's desk 10 days before expiry with one quote, no options, and no disclosure.
Dimension 8: CRF and depreciation report alignment
The CRF and the depreciation report should tell one story: what the building will need in the next 30 years, and the funding plan that pays for it. In practice, a good manager keeps that math clear. Notably, the BC government's depreciation report rules were updated in July 2024 to tie funding to the report's numbers. As a result, this dimension matters more now than five years ago. Ask for the current CRF balance, the funding contribution plan, and the depreciation report's projected five-year spend. However, if those three numbers don't line up, the manager either hasn't done the funding math or isn't sharing it. Meanwhile, required CRF funding changes are rolling in. For instance, a manager who hasn't raised them with council by now is not tracking the regulatory environment.
What good looks like (score 5): CRF balance reconciles to the depreciation report projections, funding schedule is documented, and the manager has already briefed council on the mandatory CRF funding changes.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no one on council can state the current CRF balance or whether it's on track against the depreciation report.
Dimension 9: Technology and portal access
Modern strata work in BC runs on an owner portal: doc access, online fee payment, maintenance tickets, meeting packets. In contrast, a firm without a working portal is pushing friction onto volunteers. Look for 24/7 doc access, online fee payment, digital minutes, and a maintenance flow with status tracking.
The bar is not high. Many mid-tier BC firms run working portals. A manager who still sends everything by email in 2026 has ops that have not kept pace. Similarly, a broken portal nobody uses is worse than no portal.
What good looks like (score 5): owners access current bylaws, minutes, and financial statements 24/7 through the portal; online payment works; maintenance requests flow through a ticket system with visible status.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): no portal, or a portal so broken the manager tells council "just email me instead."
Dimension 10: Manager portfolio load
How many units should a BC strata manager handle?
CHOA Executive Director Tony Gioventu cites 500 units as the sweet spot for a single manager's book. However, most BC managers hold more because the industry is short on talent. A manager with 15 buildings at 80 units each is carrying 1,200 units. As a result, your building will be triaged.
Ask the direct question: how many buildings and how many total units is our manager on the hook for? A good firm will tell you. Check how many managers the firm has and how many total units they run. For instance, 50,000 units and 40 managers equals an average load of 1,250 — probably over the line. In our experience, this one dimension explains most of the other nine when scores are low.
What good looks like (score 5): proposed manager handles 500 units or fewer across no more than 8 buildings, with documented admin support.
Tell-tale red flag (score 1): manager handles 1,500+ units or refuses to state the portfolio size when asked directly.
How to run a strata manager performance review BC councils can defend
The rubric only works if the council scores from proof, not from the loudest owner's last complaint. Pull the following before you score:
- The last six monthly financial packages
- The last four council meeting minutes
- The last 10 non-emergency emails to the manager, with response times
- The most recent insurance renewal correspondence
- The current CRF balance and depreciation report
- Any RESA disclosures on file (the absence is also a data point)
- The current service agreement
Score each dimension 1 to 5. Every council member scores on their own, then compares. When members differ by 2 or more points, somebody has facts the others don't. For instance, the treasurer holds the financial proof; the president holds the email record; committee chairs hold the vendor signals. In short, pool the proof before you pool the scores.
One note on honesty. Councils under stress tend to score on vibes and justify after. However, the rubric resists that: each dimension has a behaviour anchor, and the anchors run on proof. If the scores cluster at 1s and 5s with nothing in the middle, proof should pull them back to the centre. If it doesn't, the case is worse than the rubric shows. That, in itself, is a real finding.
The scorecard's purpose is not to indict the manager. It is to give the council language and evidence.
What your total score means
Add the ten dimension scores. The total will sit between 10 and 50. In practice, the three bands below map the total to a clear next step. A score of 28 is not "somewhere in the middle." It is a signal to open a review.
Score 40–50: Stay and improve
Your manager is doing well on most dimensions. Drop the rubric into your next council meeting. Share the total with the managing broker and ask for a written plan on the 1 or 2 dimensions that scored 3 or below. In our experience, a good firm replies with specifics inside two weeks. Then schedule a re-score in six months. Meanwhile, check your fees against the benchmark to confirm you are paying a fair rate. A 45/50 manager at a fair fee is what this industry is supposed to deliver.
Score 30–39: Start evaluating alternatives
The manager is short on enough dimensions that the council should open an RFP and compare. However, this is not a firing; it is due diligence. Ask for 2 to 3 proposals from firms that know your building type. Review the contract terms that should be in any management deal so you know what you are comparing. Meanwhile, the review itself often shifts the incumbent's behaviour. Managers who know their building is shopping tend to find speed they didn't have the week before. If the RFP brings a clearly better option, you have the proof to propose a switch. If it doesn't, you have confirmed the incumbent is the best your building can get right now.
Score below 30: Switch
A score below 30 means the manager is failing on five or more core dimensions. As a result, the council's time is now spent covering for the firm. Hold the SGM, pass a ¾ vote, and run the 60-day transition playbook. In our experience with BC transitions, councils that delay at this score spend the next 12 months repeating the same talks. Move. The fee benchmarks for Metro Vancouver help you frame what a fair replacement should cost.
Frequently asked questions
Can a BC strata council score its manager mid-contract?
Yes. A review is an internal council task. It does not wait for contract renewal. As a result, a mid-contract scorecard becomes the proof base for either a fix-it talk or a termination motion under Section 39(1) of the Strata Property Act.
What if council members disagree on the scores?
Score on your own first, then compare. When members differ by 2 or more points, somebody has facts the others don't. Specifically, close each gap using proof: minutes, emails, invoices, the depreciation report. In practice, the gap itself is often more useful than the final score.
Is a strata manager performance review in BC legally binding?
No. A scorecard has no legal standing on its own. It is a council tool. However, the Strata Property Act governs termination under Section 39(1) and records rules under Section 37. As a result, a scorecard backs those moves but does not replace them.
Who should score the manager?
Every sitting council member, on their own. Not the treasurer alone. Not the president alone. Specifically, the proof for each dimension sits in different hands. The treasurer holds the financial signals. Meanwhile, the president holds the comms signals, and committee chairs hold the vendor signals. In short, combine them.
Does a low scorecard justify terminating the contract early?
The vote does, not the scorecard. Specifically, early termination needs a ¾ vote under Section 39(1) of the Strata Property Act by unit entitlement. As a result, a low score is the case you bring to that vote. In short, the scorecard builds the case. The motion ends the contract.
What does Section 37 of the Strata Property Act have to do with evaluation?
Section 37 is the rule that makes the outgoing firm hand over all records within two weeks of termination. As a result, a scorecard that catches document faults in Dimension 3 is key if the council later terminates. In our experience, poor records pre-termination almost always predicts a slow Section 37 handover.
Editorial note: this scorecard is from the Strata Match editorial desk. About the author. We built it from BCFSA's eight-point guide, Fort Park's complaint patterns, the CRT's strata decision database, and the Reddit switch threads. This is editorial research, not legal advice; for contract review, ask a BC-licensed strata lawyer. Section 135 is the rule in the Strata Property Act that governs bylaw notices and hearings, used in Dimension 6.
The receipt: printable 10-row scorecard
Print this. Score independently as a council. Add the column and map the total to the band.
| # | Dimension | What you're scoring | Your score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manager turnover and stability | Tenure of your current manager on your building | |
| 2 | Communication responsiveness | Stated SLA vs. actual email response time on last 10 emails | |
| 3 | Financial transparency | Monthly package narrative, vendor detail, CRF reconciliation | |
| 4 | Meeting preparation and attendance | Agenda timing, minutes turnaround, action-item tracking | |
| 5 | Contractor and vendor management | Follow-through on work orders, RESA disclosure of referral fees | |
| 6 | Bylaw enforcement consistency | Section 135 process applied evenly across infractions | |
| 7 | Insurance management | 90-day renewal prep, multiple quotes, broker compensation disclosure | |
| 8 | CRF and depreciation report alignment | Balance reconciles to report, funding schedule documented | |
| 9 | Technology and portal access | Owner portal works, documents accessible 24/7 | |
| 10 | Manager portfolio load | Units under current manager ≤500, documented admin support | |
| Total | Sum of all ten dimensions |
Band map:
- 40–50: Stay. Ask the broker for a written plan on the 1 or 2 low-scoring dimensions. Re-score in six months. Benchmark your fee to confirm fair value.
- 30–39: Evaluate. Open an RFP. Compare 2 to 3 proposals from firms experienced with your building type. Review the contract checklist before signing anything.
- Below 30: Switch. Hold the SGM, pass the ¾ vote, run the 60-day transition playbook. Get matched with firms accepting buildings your size →
{/* SOURCE: _source/bc-strata-pricing-research.md lines 98-160 (evaluation criteria), BCFSA strata management selection guidance, Strata Property Act sections 37, 39(1), 92, 135, 147, 149 */}
Related tools for your council
- Run the interactive version — the same 10-dimension rubric as a 6-question scorecard, with a band recommendation. Two minutes, no printout needed.
- Compare your current firm against 414 alternatives — BCFSA-verified directory, organized by BC city. See firms in Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, or your municipality.
- Benchmark your fees — if your score is low, check whether you are also overpaying.
- Get matched with 2-3 alternatives — free to councils, inside 24 hours.
